The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius • Hacker News Board

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#331

Post by mertd » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

tomxor wrote: post #309

throwaway713 wrote: post #191

I agree with his theory, but what I find particularly interesting is that I think most people do not have an obsessive interest in anything at all. And as someone who has obsessive interests in a lot of things (some “useful”, some not), that seems really odd to me: how can you just be satisfied to go to work, come home, watch TV, and go to bed each day? (Not saying that’s the wrong way to live, just saying it is surp…

> I have a very intense dread of losing myself in the necessary mundanity of life; I am more financially comfortable than ever, but I also feel less like myself than I ever have. Going to meetings, making dinner, creating to-do lists — these don’t fit my personality at all, but I have to do them because they need to be done. You just articulated my worst fear, occasionally some aspect of it creeps into my life when s…

Except simply surviving in a non-urban environment is even more mundane and exhausting.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#332

Post by tsycho » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

throwaway713 wrote: post #191

I agree with his theory, but what I find particularly interesting is that I think most people do not have an obsessive interest in anything at all. And as someone who has obsessive interests in a lot of things (some “useful”, some not), that seems really odd to me: how can you just be satisfied to go to work, come home, watch TV, and go to bed each day? (Not saying that’s the wrong way to live, just saying it is surp…

Your fear is valid. One way I solved it (partly) is to hire help. Use your financial comfort to buy back your own time by paying someone else to do chores like cleaning, dishes etc. And the 1-2 hours per day that you'll save, now you can spend with your kid and/or on your interests.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#333

Post by achillesheels » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

drongoking wrote: post #323

Two reactions to this. I almost believe these: 1. The difference between collecting bus tickets, working on mathematics, and figuring the crystallization patterns of snowflakes is virtually nothing. To the people obsessed with it, it is all-important; to outsiders, all three look indistinguishably pointless. Only in retrospect can anyone say whether the activity led to something society considers important. The truly…

You’re completely deluded into believing that genius is overrated. While it is never in isolation, and its fruits are the product of historical necessity, it takes a rare breed of sacrifice, which PG here is saying as obsession, to hit the targets no one else sees (paraphrasing Arthur Schopenhauer); and is constitutionally the personal, moral input of an individual on choosing how to cause themselves to be, unconcerned with the mediocre concerns of their contemporary society.

Shame on you and your ilk for suggesting Descartes, Newton, Kant etc. were just there picking low hanging fruit. They were doing work no one had the courage to do.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#334

Post by throwawaymath » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 11:00 PM UTC

achillesheels wrote: post #333

drongoking wrote: post #323

Two reactions to this. I almost believe these: 1. The difference between collecting bus tickets, working on mathematics, and figuring the crystallization patterns of snowflakes is virtually nothing. To the people obsessed with it, it is all-important; to outsiders, all three look indistinguishably pointless. Only in retrospect can anyone say whether the activity led to something society considers important. The truly…

You’re completely deluded into believing that genius is overrated. While it is never in isolation, and its fruits are the product of historical necessity, it takes a rare breed of sacrifice, which PG here is saying as obsession, to hit the targets no one else sees (paraphrasing Arthur Schopenhauer); and is constitutionally the personal, moral input of an individual on choosing how to cause themselves to be, unconcern…

> You’re completely deluded into believing that genius is overrated.

...

> Shame on you and your ilk for suggesting Descartes, Newton, Kant etc. were just there picking low hanging fruit. They were doing work no one had the courage to do.

There's a lot of passion in your comment, but it's also really antagonistic. The person you replied to was very respectful and cogent in expressing their point of view; you abandoned that civility quite quickly - and for what?

If you're as well read as your references imply, surely you can appreciate an argument which casts aspersion on the "lone hero" ideation of historical progress.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#335

Post by iandanforth » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 11:00 PM UTC

One associated personality trait I've observed in the obsessive and successful is guilt free myopia.

If you either don't notice, or don't care, when people around you are negatively impacted by your obsession you can get so much more done. I must emphasize I don't think there's usually any malice involved, just an ability to forget that not eating dinner with your significant other might make them mad, or that being late to something might inconvenience a colleague.

There are, of course, serious caveats to this behavior and it can have lasting negative effects, but people who work well even in the face of attempted social interruptions or implied responsibilities strike me as quite free.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#336

Post by larnmar » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 11:11 PM UTC

danbmil99 wrote: post #219

throwaway713 wrote: post #191

I agree with his theory, but what I find particularly interesting is that I think most people do not have an obsessive interest in anything at all. And as someone who has obsessive interests in a lot of things (some “useful”, some not), that seems really odd to me: how can you just be satisfied to go to work, come home, watch TV, and go to bed each day? (Not saying that’s the wrong way to live, just saying it is surp…

Frankly most people obsess about things like finding a mate, playing video games, collecting comics, politics, reading books, watching & discussing TV shows & movies, social websites (such as this one), sex, porn, fashion, sports, the social politics of work (as opposed to the work itself -- e.g. "The Office") and, of course, their kids. But none of these sorts of obsessions are likely to lead to fame or fortune. I t…

You’ve just listed off a dozen obsessive interests, and that’s the problem — you can’t have a dozen obsessive interests, there’s only enough room for one.

When I was twenty I could afford an obsessive interest in my studies. Now I’m in my late thirties I simply have too much going on.

On the upside, when I’m sixty (which is peak bus ticket collecting age) I can see how I will, finally free of the constraints of work and children, finally have time to obsess again. I hope I still have the mental agility to do it well, and that I don’t get sucked into some bus ticket vortex.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#337

Post by adnzzzzZ » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 11:14 PM UTC

rumanator wrote: post #277

georgespencer wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kinda the point. Work ethic and obsession are not enough: you have to also win a series of lotteries -- genetic and environmental -- to succeed in his field.

> That's kinda the point. Work ethic and obsession are not enough: you have to also win a series of lotteries -- genetic and environmental -- to succeed in his field. Ok, you've heard of Cristiano Ronaldo. Yet, have you heard of Dani? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani_(footballer,_born_1976) Like Ronaldo he was launched int Sporting Clube de Portugal's first team when he played for the club's U17 team. Unlike Ronald…

I mostly agree with you but "work ethics" is also partially genetic. It's defined partly by a big five trait called conscientiousness which has a fair percentage of its effects not explainable by the environment or random chance.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#338

Post by larnmar » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 11:14 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #99

MarkMMullin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'problem' with modern science is that a large finite amount of stuff has been discovered, and new discoveries are most often built on that stuff. I splash around in the backwaters of machine learning, however I have to pick my targets carefully and maintain a very tight focus - the defined knowledge base has already grown to more than anyone can ingest in detail. Given the amount of knowledge that has to be absor…

Neural networks are a good example of something that was once ignored as an academic curiosity at best.

Neural networks followed a typical hype cycle — before they were ignored they were the next big thing.

Then they got ignored, and then they finally got useful.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#339

Post by Gatsky » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 11:15 PM UTC

maxander wrote: post #252

Academia, for all its faults, is still an excellent system for collecting those who are obsessive about s subject (at least for a certain set of “established” subjects.) It’s preposterously difficult to do the PhD-through-tenure course if you’re not obsessed, and it certainly isn’t the financially optimal career path; if someone has made it through that system, you can be sure they’re happy sitting and doing their su…

Not really, it depends in the field. I have definitely met academics that after an early success just keep going. The extent to which they work in one area relates more to their initial success than any obsession. Similarly well established academics that quit to do something similar to their research but not very related and much better paid.

Re: The Bus Ticket Theory of Genius

#340

Post by tekkk » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 11:15 PM UTC

achillesheels wrote: post #333

drongoking wrote: post #323

Two reactions to this. I almost believe these: 1. The difference between collecting bus tickets, working on mathematics, and figuring the crystallization patterns of snowflakes is virtually nothing. To the people obsessed with it, it is all-important; to outsiders, all three look indistinguishably pointless. Only in retrospect can anyone say whether the activity led to something society considers important. The truly…

You’re completely deluded into believing that genius is overrated. While it is never in isolation, and its fruits are the product of historical necessity, it takes a rare breed of sacrifice, which PG here is saying as obsession, to hit the targets no one else sees (paraphrasing Arthur Schopenhauer); and is constitutionally the personal, moral input of an individual on choosing how to cause themselves to be, unconcern…

I see the reasonings of both of your points. To me it seems in the old days, there was a lot of hindrance in reaching your potential therefore for those few to become geniuses, you truly had to be exceptional and since there was so few, your impact would be tremendous.

Now compare that to the modern day, where I'd say a lot higher percentage of people are hitting their potential as a genius. Therefore, a lot more people are coming up with new novel things, but since a lot of the easy major milestones in sciences have been attained, the impact of those single individual geniuses is much smaller.

Modern age Newton could be just a very good AI researcher from England. It's just impossible for humans to have devolved so much that the genius of the previous generations would be so much different than we have today.